In re the Claim of Sabater

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Sabater

184 A.D.2d 953, 584 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8104

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 953 (In re the Claim of Sabater) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Sabater, 184 A.D.2d 953, 584 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance [954]*954Appeal Board, filed September 6, 1991, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a maintenance engineer, was fired when he refused to work periodically on the weekends. The evidence establishes that claimant was advised when he was hired that he would occasionally have to work weekends. Although he had done so in the past, claimant began to refuse to do weekend work when he did not receive the raise that he had expected. Claimant testified that, had he gotten the raise he wanted, he would have worked on the weekend. Accordingly, the conclusion that claimant’s employment ended under disqualifying conditions and that his actions constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Graziose [Levine], 50 AD2d 1030; Matter of Flores [Levine], 50 AD2d 1006).

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mercure, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance [954]*954Appeal Board, filed September 6, 1991, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a maintenance engineer, was fired when he refused to work periodically on the weekends. The evidence establishes that claimant was advised when he was hired that he would occasionally have to work weekends. Although he had done so in the past, claimant began to refuse to do weekend work when he did not receive the raise that he had expected. Claimant testified that, had he gotten the raise he wanted, he would have worked on the weekend. Accordingly, the conclusion that claimant’s employment ended under disqualifying conditions and that his actions constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Graziose [Levine], 50 AD2d 1030; Matter of Flores [Levine], 50 AD2d 1006).

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mercure, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 953, 584 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-sabater-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack